Report Documentation Page

Transcription

1 Transmit / Receive Modules Dr. Brad Binder Technical Director PEO IWS 2.0 Above Water Sensors Directorate Naval Sea Systems Command This brief is provided for information only and does not constitute a commitment on behalf of the U.S. Government to provide additional information on the program and/or sale of the equipment or system. Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

2 Report Documentation Page Form Approved OMB No Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 01 MAY REPORT TYPE N/A 3. DATES COVERED - 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Transmit / Receive ModulesTransmit Modules 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) PEO IWS 2.0 Above Water Sensors Directorate Naval Sea Systems Command 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR S ACRONYM(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release, distribution unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES See also ADM , The original document contains color images. 14. ABSTRACT 15. SUBJECT TERMS 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR S REPORT NUMBER(S) 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT UU a. REPORT unclassified b. ABSTRACT unclassified c. THIS PAGE unclassified 18. NUMBER OF PAGES 15 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18

3 T/R Module Outline Future surface navy radar Performance and cost Wide bandgap semiconductors Summary 2

4 Radar System Performance Drivers 3

5 SPY-3 S-VSR CJR S CJR X LOW-COST RADAR R&D SUSTAINING UPGRADES LEGACY DIVESTMENTS LITTORAL WARFARE ENHANCEMENTS Sensors Technology Passive In-Service New Development Above Water Sensor Overview DD(X) CVN LHA(R) SPY-3 / VSR Cobra Judy Replacement Suite CG(X) CJR LCS SENSOR SUITE IN-SERVICE RADARS (SPS-48 ROAR, SPQ-9B, etc) SPY-1 In-service AEGIS SEWIP IN-SERVICE SLQ-32 EO/IR SYSTEM IROS3 & FOLLOW-ON SUPPORTING TECHNOLOGIES AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION Competition LCS (Radar Suite) Fleet Upgrades/ Backfits CG 47 Conversion DDG 51 Midlife Fleet Upgrades & DD(X) Fleet Upgrades, LCS, & DD(X) ONR, MDA, Int l Cooperative Technology Efforts 4

6 Navy History in Shipboard Phased Arrays 60+ year track record of ship and phased array radar design, engineering, and construction present: 27 Aegis Cruisers; 44+ Destroyers Ongoing development of next-generation advanced shipboard phased array radars Clear understanding of shipboard power, cooling, and other auxiliary support systems 1960: USS Long Beach and USS Enterprise Search and Track Phased Arrays 1939: Battleship Gunfire Control Radar 5

7 T/R Module Issues Technology supports most requirements LV GaAs output power limitations Can address by multiple HPAs per T/R module; Drives cost HV GaAs satisfies most requirements Wideband gap materials offer highest power potential Thermal management and cost challenges LV GaAs in fielded systems HV GaAs in engineering development systems WBG devices in research and technology development High T/R module cost for long range RADAR applications Large quantities of modules needed Cost, Cost, not not performance, performance, is is most most challenging challenging issue issue for for future future surface surface Navy Navy applications applications 6

8 X-band T/R Module Cost Breakdown Three major X-band T/R module cost elements GaAs MMICs, packaging, and assembly Reduction in all areas for significant price cut GaAs cost significantly varies among suppliers Typical X-band T/R Module Cost GaAs Packaging Labor Other MMICs MMICs are are highest highest cost cost item item and and have have greatest greatest variation variation 7

9 MMIC Cost MMIC $ = (Processed wafer $) / (# of good MMICs/wafer) Processed wafer cost drivers are labor and capital # of good MMICs determined by wafer diameter, MMIC size, and yield Top view of wafer showing MMICs and defective parts 8

10 Wafer Processing Cost Capital and overhead costs vary widely among foundries Foundry utilization = (Good wafers)/(capacity) Low foundry utilization increases cost by > 300% Volume often insufficient for low capital/overhead cost GaAs foundry capacity = 10,000-50,000 4 wafers/yr 100, W modules use 2,000 4 or 1,000 6 wafers High volume products using similar processes, not identical parts, necessary for low cost Significant Significant wafer wafer volume volume necessary necessary for for low low MMIC MMIC cost; cost; MMIC MMIC volume volume driven driven by by wireless wireless applications applications 9

11 Wafer Diameter Larger diameter has more parts for similar wafer cost GaAs currently on 3 or 4, some transition to 6 6 processing requires large capital investment High volume necessary to offset capital cost Technical issues; Breakage and uniformity 3 4 2x s # of 3 MMICs 6 2x s # of 4 MMICs Transition Transition to to 6 6 wafers wafers driven driven by by volume, volume, not not cost cost 10

12 Size/Complexity and Defects Lower Power MMIC - defect 40% MMIC Yield (25-50% typical for 5 Watts) Smaller die less expensive/higher yield; Complexity drives yield High process yield enables higher power and higher integration - Current commercial devices will not drive improvements High High complexity complexity control control and and PA PA MMICs MMICs stress stress yields yields and and drive drive cost cost 11

13 T/R Module Assembly Wire bond and pick and place assembly is highly automated High assembly yields (> 90%) can be achieved Total direct labor time can be < 1 hour per module Bond wire reliability not an issue; Missed, rather than weak, wire bonds made by robotics Flip-chip and ball-grid arrays can reduce assembly time Introduces CTE-based reliability and design issues; Issue is more severe as integration/size increases Batch (parallel) rather than serial assembly process Eliminates cost of backside processing, but adds additional cost of wafer bumping Bondwire-based Bondwire-based assembly assembly can can be be reliable reliable and and low low cost cost 12

14 T/R Module Packaging Packaging satisfies performance Low loss only critical after PA and before LNA Thermal management can be an issue for high power MMIC applications Cost reduction is remaining issue Thick-film, rather than thin-film, on low cost substrate Different requirements within a module; No traditional T/Rs PA and LNA needs high performance, low I/O; Single layer, gold ink, thick-film substrate Control MMICs needs low performance, high I/O; Multiple layer, thick-film conductor Movement Movement to to lower lower cost, cost, lower lower performance performance substrates substrates and and modified modified packaging packaging architectures architectures 13

15 Cost Determines Technology Choice X-Band 2P W Module SiC or GaN vs. 16,750 Elements 7.5 ft Diameter Wide Bandgap Technology X-Band P W Module GaAs 33,000 Elements 11 ft Diameter Current Technology Equivalent Performance Tracking Radars Higher power module lowers number of T/R modules and area Requires more MMIC power, prime power, and cooling For many high power applications cost will drive technology choice 14

16 Future Trends for Phased Arrays Use of foundries with high loading Move to larger wafers driven by other applications Development to improve yields Power amplifier and control MMIC complexity lowers yield compared to simpler components Significant cost reduction potential (> 2X) Enables lower cost packaging/assembly by enabling higher level of integration Semiconductor cost reduction through improved processes Also enables higher integration to reduce packaging and assembly costs Utilize lower cost, lower performance packaging materials Cost and power are stressing future requirements Wide bandgap to address output power/cost issues Metrics other than power density necessary to evaluate progress Material quality key to scaling proof-of-concept devices to higher powers with same power density 15